REI="Return Every Item" is no more

[Sicks]

First of all, one need not "use an item for a year", one need only "own the item for a year"; I think that's a huge distinction. Sometimes that use may be very small over a year, such that determining whether the item suits your needs or not isn't determined. While I can adjust to REI's change (one way is by not buying there of course), one reason I like buying from REI is that I don't have to worry about figuring out whether the item is perfect. I have returned a grand total of 3 items to REI over the years, but I liked the policy as "insurance" for the purchasing decision.

In any case, here's one example along the lines you asked: you know those cheap camp chairs, that cost $5 or $10? Like this? That sometimes last a while and sometimes break the first day you use it? Well, on the advice of a friend I purchased an expensive one from REI, for $35 or so, figuring that I was insuring against such breakage. That if the chair broke 2 years later, I could return it, knowing that if the chair lasted a long time I'd be happy with the purchase and not return it. Which it has, the chair is close to falling apart now but it's been years; it was worth the money and I wouldn't dream of returning it. But when it finally "dies", I won't buy a chair like that from REI again, because if I do and it breaks in year 2, I don't want to have to argue that it was defective in order to return it. I'd rather just go with buying the $5-10 chairs over and over.

If it takes you a year to decide if a purchase was really worth it or useful to you, then you should have thought it through before you bought it. Returning an item to a store that outdated means the store will sell it for pennies, while you expect a full refund. That's what garage sales and ski swaps are for.

And $35 for a camp chair is cheap.

[Hugh Conway]

If a-holes hadn't gamed the system so much, it probably would have stuck around.

How the fuck is it gaming the system if the store and shop rats suggest you do it?

Big Steve is of course being a good lawyer and ignoring that tightening the return policy makes it more difficult to return for any reason, which is of course the point. Absolutely no reason to buy anything from REI now, hopefully they'll whither and die.

[LightRanger]

IIRC, if they can't locate a record of you having purchased the item, they won't take it back.

Incorrect. They'll give you store credit--no cash. At least that was how it was when I worked there. They may have changed the policy.

Danno, I think you're a bit too worried. I strongly suspect the new policy will be selectively enforced. They have to write it down to stop the abuse, but that doesn't preclude them from replacing something outside of the period. They're just going to be more selective.

I actually saw a few instances of people flagged and banned from returning things under the old policy by a savvier manager. Pretty egregious return histories.

The new policy gives more leeway for denials, but like I said, I suspect that if you have legitimate complaints, they will at least entertain them.

[concretejungle]

How the fuck is it gaming the system if the store and shop rats suggest you do it?

I think people who do this stuff suck but you're correct. REI doesn't have their head in the sand and have done the math. In the past they've decided that it was worth it apparently that is no longer the case.

[neck beard]

One year not enough? Spoilt brats. Grow a pair and be the owner of your retail gluttony leading to a bad decision.

Imagine some mealy mouthed beady eyed gaper coming into your shop saying that their fucking camp chair failed to satisfy them after a few years of occasional use. Thankfully there are still places where you'd just be stared at in disbelief.

[Hugh Conway]

I think people who do this stuff suck but you're correct.

I save that for the people who buy LLBean & Patagonia stuff at garage sales to return.

in reality this is just explicitly codifying the somewhat de facto return policy REI has adopted since the downturn.


neckbeard -
maybe the retailer shouldn't spew such bullshit about the goods being sold

[neck beard]

Yes, that sucks. Perhaps people should be a bit smarter and strong willed and not be so easily sucked in by product fluffery. Outright lies are different.

[marshalolson]

bc.com is on the verge of doing the same thing. expect it to come sooner than later now the REI has already pulled the trigger.

[Hugh Conway]

Yes, that sucks. Perhaps people should be a bit smarter and strong willed and not be so easily sucked in by product fluffery. Outright lies are different.

hey, the fuckers at REI won't even take responsibility for selling defective product under their own label < insert Big Steve legal defense of the bullshit >


Nice to see BC & REI acting like the WalMart's they are.


awww fuck TGR avantlinking REI? That's crap. REI sells defective made in China shit fabricated by underage slaves.

[Dry]

For those that want to close their eyes (minds) and blame the lawyers you might want to rethink the corporate culture @ REI.

I don't have a problem with the new return policy but REI in general? Ya, "that corporate culture" I have a problem with.

http://www.komonews.com/news/problem...208380251.html

[GeezerSteve]

hey, the fuckers at REI won't even take responsibility for selling defective product under their own label < insert Big Steve legal defense of the bullshit >

Huh? Monika's estate won the appeal and REI's insurance carrier paid, i.e., REI took responsibility. REI's carrier has paid out on other claims of defective bicycles and other products, i.e., REI took responsibility.

As I said on the TAY thread, if you have a problem with products liability insurance carriers and the state legislators who are controlled by them, do something about it. Focusing the blame on REI and ignoring the real problem is exactly what they wanted you to do. You are their unwitting shill.

[Hugh Conway]

Focusing the blame on REI and ignoring the real problem is exactly what they wanted you to do. You are their unwitting shill.

I'm an unwitting shill because I think brander's of product should be held responsible for the product the sell? See the post right above yours. If REI doesn't like that bullshit - they should stop branding product. Easy choice, they like the money, so they accept the shit. There's no need for the vast legal system enrichment and there's no reason to defend it. That's what shills do. Most other civilized countries don't divert nearly as much money to the legal system and yet they survive.

[PNWbrit]

The real issue is that for some reason people expect REI to not act exactly like walmart (or almost any other corporation)would have done under exactly same circumstances of Monica's accident.

[Hugh Conway]

The real issue is that for some reason people expect REI to not act exactly like walmart (or almost any other corporation)would have done under exactly same circumstances of Monica's accident.

You mean because REI markets itself as a hippy dippy coop that's responsible to it's "members" aka "owners"? If it were WalMart - who's owners aka shareholders - get benefits and rights it'd be more excusable.

[Meadow Skipper]

who is the arbiter of what is defective?

A judge or jury.

When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

As I said on the TAY thread, if you have a problem with products liability insurance carriers and the state legislators who are controlled by them, do something about it. Focusing the blame on REI and ignoring the real problem is exactly what they wanted you to do. You are their unwitting shill.

So, REI is like a (corporate) victim of the system?

[PNWbrit]

You mean because REI markets itself as a hippy dippy coop that's responsible to it's "members"

I'm surprised you fell for it.

It's been no big secret that they haven't actually been that for a considerable time.

I guess if people still swallow it then you can't (or shouldn't) blame them for continuing to do so? But that under the hippy dippy facade they are a big corporation, which doesn't act against the advice of it's attorneys or it's liability insurers.

[Hugh Conway]

I'm surprised you fell for it.

Yeah, I've only been commenting on that for a decade+. Maybe since you first set foot on these rocky shores.

eesh, I missed that Big Steve gem of jury's being arbiters of defective. What a laugh.

[butterscotch]

Danno - If you don't use something enough within a full year to determine if you are satisfied with it, then you probably didn't need it in the first place. Maybe take this as an opportunity to buy less random crap that you never use?

[PNWbrit]

Yeah, I've only been commenting on that for a decade+.

Mate - your sarcasm meter needs new batteries.

You see my point though... why is anyone surprised when they act like Walmart would in their product liabilty litigation.

Unless they (still) believe the marketing claptrap.

[Hugh Conway]

Mate - your sarcasm meter needs new batteries.

sorry, just witnessed a $2 Sea Lion watching platform in a harbor today. $2 to watch the magnificent creatures known as sealions. my sarcasm meter burnt out.


I think enough REI elves do believe the bullshit. Or are paid too.

[Stairmaster]

Am I the only one who is happy about this? I hope BC.com follows suit.

[Hugh Conway]

Am I the only one who is happy about this? I hope BC.com follows suit.

You've been hording Arc'teryx for this moment haven't you?

Don't get why anyone would be "happy" ain't none of this going to trickle down to you in savings. If anything cutting off geartrade/attic sales reduces bargains for bargain hunters

[hutash]

How much of the $2 do the sea lions get?

[hutash]

How much to watch sea gulls?

[Meadow Skipper]

Am I the only one who is happy about this? I hope BC.com follows suit.

More schadenfreude than happy, but I'm not particularly proud about that.